DOJ suing Apple over ebooks.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by stonetools

The reason why indies write genre fiction is because lets face it its rather formulaic and easy to write as in:



Lets apply this formula to fantasy:



Crime/mystery/ thriller



and so on.
Romance?



You plug in whatever variations you want (LGBT? BSDM?) and there you go. That stuff is relatively easy to write (but hard to write really well) and needs no research or in the field investigation ( a la say Murio Puzo's The Godfather )which is why the bulk of indie writers produce it . If you happen to hit on the right variation ( Fifty Shades of Grey) success is yours: if you flop, , you don't lose much except time spent to writing.

Hmmm...Let's see...

Dune - no research at all was needed, (no BHP would bring it out. Published by an auto repair publisher.)

The Stars My Destination - no research at all needed.

Robert Heinlein once spend 3 days calculating orbital trajectories by hand to put one line in one scene in one book (Space Cadet). but that was Ok because he was published then by a BHP (who threw him out the door the second they didn't like one of his books.)

The Foundation Trilogy was published by indie publishers.

Shall I go on...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by rhadin

...

Yes, you have convinced me. Publishers deserve 100% of the blame for all the ills in the publishing world and for keeping authors from becoming the new Dan Browns.

Good to hear.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Heh, cute. Unfortunately, in the real world, author's advances are an "expense" - the biggest expense of all, despite much snark about executive salaries and perks. The BPHS should be thought of as venture capitalists who "bet" on various authors and projects and share the risk with them by advancing them money and resources (editing services, etc) against future profits ( royalties).

Why would thinking of them as venture capitalists make anyone more in favor of them? Most of my experiences with venture capitalists are "organizations that see a chance for profit, throw money like crazy at a project, and abandon it if it doesn't churn out high revenue in the markets they've decided should be paying for it."

Most of the times these bets lose money, sometimes they pay off ( mid-list authors like Charles Stross) and sometimes they pay off big ( Laura Hillebrand, Stephen King). most of the time you never hear about the losses (7 out of 10 of all books).

Do you have any statistics that support the claim that BPHs lose money on 7 out of 10 books they publish? I could believe "7 out of 10 don't earn out on the advance," but the publisher doesn't automatically lose money on those--earning back a $10k advance doesn't take $100k in sales. When they've sold enough books to cover $10k + editorial costs + printing costs (which we're assured are a VERY TINY FRACTION of the list price), they've made a profit.

Essentially, consumers are bitching about the pricing of the winners while not even considering the expenses of the losers, which the BPHS have to eat.

If they can't be bothered to research which books have a large enough contingent of potential customers, they deserve to eat those losses. I'm not particularly sympathetic to the idea that I should pay more so that books nobody wants to read will get published. If there *is* a market for those books, but it's smaller... production should be pulled back to that size. If it's not economically feasible to print (or ebookize) the book at that market size... it doesn't get produced.

This is pretty much how every other market in existence works.

While it's difficult for a large organization to be nimble enough to track viability for every title... it's certainly easier to do so now than it was 10 years ago. They could discover which academic topics will support expensive nonfic books. They could see what fiction topics are trending. They could connect with book clubs and online reviewers and pre-establish a market for specific titles or whole themes. ("Urban fantasy with awesome women warriors" could get a huge following.)

Almost every living author that you've ever heard of was introduced to the public through the BPHs- including one JA Konrath ( quiet as its kept).

John Locke. Amanda Hocking. Boyd Morrison. E L James. Selena Kitt. Rich Burlew (webcomic artist who raised over $1 million on Kickstarter to self-publish a print volume).

The fact that most authors who make enough by writing to quit their day jobs went through the BPHs as little as 5 years ago doesn't mean that's going to be the majority truth in the future. Right now, most of the authors most of us know have gone through the BPHs--because 10 years ago, that was the only game in town, except for tiny fringe markets and techno-geeks with stars in their eyes.

No more, though; beginning authors have a choice whether to seek a BPH or self-publish--and any objective view of the merits of each says that neither is "better" for an author's career. However, self-publishing has the opportunity for more money faster.

As to the new business model, it seems to be based on the idea that the author should take all the risk, do all the work, and price the product at a fraction of the price of books put out by the BPHs- all in search of a market- ebook only - that is still a fraction of the total book market. Not surprisingly, most new authors still prefer to pursue the " old business model" whenever they have a choice.

Yes, the self-publish route costs more up-front from the author. However, openings with BPHs are limited; there certainly aren't *more* available slots than there were 10 years ago. Plenty of BPH authors have said that the midlist is being killed off.

Those authors have a choice of "self-publish or don't publish," not "self or BPH."

Ah, the old long-tail concept. You should understand that this is an academic hypothesis that is by no means established in practice. Glad you agree that fact-based nonfiction is likely to decline in the future.

If there's no market demand, it's going to languish.

[Graham]

Interesting analysis:

http://feldmanfile.blogspot.co.uk/20...oliath-vs.html

In short, the conflicts between the five publishers and Amazon aren't David vs. Goliath--they're actually Goliath vs. Goliath. When Apple is added into the mix, it's Amazon that could justifiably be called David.

Graham

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If they can't be bothered to research which books have a large enough contingent of potential customers,

Of course the look at these things. But that is no guarantee that a book will sell enough.

[kennyc]

Good blog post from Kristine Katherine Rusch on several of the topics touched on in this thread:

http://kriswrites.com/2012/04/18/the...of-publishing/

I’m seeing more screwups ahead. As traditional publishers try to justify their positions (manufacture demand for their services), they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth. Digital Book World had an article this week about consumer reactions to high e-book prices in the face of the Justice Department suit (yes, Rick, you were right about this). In that article, Molly Barton, Penguin’s global digital director said that e-book production “costs 10% less” than print book production. “But,” she added, “the largest expense is author payment and always has been.”

Let me say, simply, bullshit.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Good blog post from Kristine Katherine Rusch on several of the topics touched on in this thread:

http://kriswrites.com/2012/04/18/the...of-publishing/

Excellent linked article Kenny, superb. Pretty much annihilates a lot of arguments in this thread.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Excellent linked article Kenny, superb. Pretty much annihilates a lot of arguments in this thread.

Yep, she's been in this business a while, on all sides. Excellent perspective.

[HarryT]

So Ms Rusch, whoever she may be, knows more about the economics of digital publishing than Penguin's global digital director?

What is Ms Rusch's background in publishing?

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So Ms Rusch, whoever she may be, knows more about the economics of digital publishing than Penguin's global digital director?

What is Ms Rusch's background in publishing?

Did you read the last paragraphs of the blog post (in italic)?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Did you read the last paragraphs of the blog post (in italic)?

It says that she founded a publishing company in 1988. Is she still a publisher? I imagine that the economics of the business have changes considerably since 1988!

I still suspect that Penguin's global digital director is perhaps more knowledgeable about the economics of Penguin's business than any "outsider".

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It says that she founded a publishing company in 1988. Is she still a publisher? I imagine that the economics of the business have changes considerably since 1988!

I still suspect that Penguin's global digital director is perhaps more knowledgeable about the economics of Penguin's business than any "outsider".

You can 'suspect' all you want Harry, but the answer is yes, for all the reasons that have been discussed here, in thousands of articles and in the clear direction the business is going (or not in the case of Penguin and the other traditional publishers).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You can 'suspect' all you want Harry, but the answer is yes, for all the reasons that have been discussed here, in thousands of articles and in the clear direction the business is going (or not in the case of Penguin and the other traditional publishers).

Sorry, Kenny; the answer to what is "yes"?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It says that she founded a publishing company in 1988. Is she still a publisher? I imagine that the economics of the business have changes considerably since 1988!

I still suspect that Penguin's global digital director is perhaps more knowledgeable about the economics of Penguin's business than any "outsider".

I'm afraid I can't accept that argument. A high position in a long existing corporate structure does not guaranteed competence at anything but the ability to climb the corporate ladder.

If it did, no corporation would ever fail. (I say that, having worked for the equilvalent of the BHP in the Finacial industry for the last 20 years.)

[HappyMartin]

Keep thinking this thread must be DOJ suing Amazon.

One reason I can give why ebooks should be cheaper is while it may not cost much to print and distribute a pbook when the cost of the printing and distributing is seen as a percentage of the price the book sells for. But what of all the books that don't sell? Suddenly the price of printings, distributing, removing from shelves and returning, warehousing and pulping is not offset against a sale. It is added to the costs of doing business and must be borne by the books that do sell.

We are always given the clever fact that the cost of printing a book that sells is relatively small but that is misleading. Many books do not sell. If Amazon can sell ebooks cheaper and turn a profit then good for them. This case is about Apple and the BPH's. Amazon and it's customers are not on trial for what they paid